Matlock v. Matlock’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 160 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 163 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘If this rule is to be given jurisdictional and mandatory effect, then the motion to dismiss is well taken. The language Used is mandatory in form and should be so construed unless there is reason for giving it some other effect. There is no stronger mandatory term than the word “shall.” “ ‘There is no provision in this rule which would permit us to grant an extension of time for any reason upon motion filed within the twenty-day period or at any other time.’ “ ‘Rule 5, T.R.C.P. provides in part as follows: “ ‘ “But it (the appellate court) may not enlarge the period * * * for taking an appeal or writ of error from the trial court to any higher court * * * except as stated in the rules relating thereto.” “ ‘This is mandatory language and means that the appellate court can not enlarge the period of time for taking an appeal in a quo warranto proceeding, except as stated in Rule 384. There being no provision in Rule 384 for the granting of an enlargement of time of the period for the taking of an appeal in a quo warranto proceeding, we do not have the power to grant such enlargement. * * * “ ‘As we interpret the Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 437 provides that we can make no “enlargement of time prohibited by Rule 5 and Rule 5” provides that we “may not enlarge the period * * * for taking an appeal * * or writ of error from the trial court to any higher court * * * except as stated in the rules relating thereto.” “ ‘This is mandatory language and means that the appellate cour”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Clayton v. Clayton · Hendrix v. Hendrix

2. ““The 43rd Legislature, in 1933, in Chapter 67, Gen.Laws, Reg.Sess., amended Article 1839 so as to grant appellant some relief from the strictness of the 1931 amendment. The only change material to this decision was a provision that ‘by motion filed before, at, or within a reasonable time, not exceeding fifteen days, after the expiration of such sixty day period, showing good cause to have existed within such sixty day period, why said transcript could not be so filed, the Court of Civil Appeals may permit the same to be thereafter filed upon such terms as it shall prescribe.’ All prior Acts with respect to 'good cause’ contained no limitation or restriction with respect to what might constitute ‘good cause,’ but that is not true of the 1933 Act. It provided that the appellant must show ‘good cause’ to have existed during the sixty-day period ‘why said transcript could not be so filed’. By that amendment the Legislature relieved the appellant from the strictness of the 1931 amendment to the extent only of allowing him an extension of fifteen days within which to file a motion for additional time, but at the same time it added a restriction by providing that in order to be entitled to file the transcript out of time he must show good cause why he could not file it within the sixty-day period.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Watson v. Sellers

3. ““In the motion of respondent for leave to file the record out of time she made no attempt to show that it could not have been filed within the sixty-day period. To the contrary, the motion affirmatively discloses that it could have been filed within that period. Both the transcript and the statement of facts were in the hands of respondent’s attorneys several days before the expiration of the sixty-day period, and the reason stated in the motion for not filing the same within the sixty-day period was that one of respondent’s attorneys had understood that upon receipt of said record the secretary of his firm had delivered the same to the Railway Express Company to be delivered to the Clerk of the Court of Civil Appeals for filing within the sixty-day period. That cannot be held to have been a good cause why the record could not have been filed within that period.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Massey v. Brindley